State of M.P. vs Rubai Singh and Another

T.K. Kaushal, J.—This appeal has been preferred u/s 378(1) of Criminal Procedure Code by the State against the judgment dated 25/09/1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Damon in S.T. No. 172/1996, acquitting the respondents of the charge u/s 306 IPC. Facts of the case in short are that during three years of married life of deceased Jamuna Bai @ Abhilash, she was always disliked by respondent no. 1 Rubai Singh, husband and respondent no. 2 Mannu, Dewar for her so called ugly looks. She was mentally tortured by the respondents stating that respondent Rubai Singh will leave her for ever and will marry some other lady. Having felt harrassed by above acts of respondents, on 12/06/1996 deceased ended her life by hanging herself in her matrimonial house.

Deceased while was taken to the hospital by Baliram (Jeth) and Kanchhedi Singh (uncle) (PW- 1) expired on the way. On the basis of information furnished by Ginni, father of deceased (PW-4) at police station Tendukheda District- Damoh marg Ex. P- 12 was registered. Naksha Panchnama of the lash Ex. P-2 was prepared. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-3), who prepared post mortem report Ex. P-7 showing cause of death as asphixya (sic. Asphyxia) by hanging. On 13/06/1997 police Tendukheda registered a case at Crime No. 56/1996 against the respondents u/s 306/201 IPC. During investigation Spot Map Ex. P-3 was prepared. A Nylone rope was seized from the house of the respondents at the instance of respondent no. 1 Rubai Singh. Respondents were arrested vide Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11 on 4th July, 1996. After completing investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the respondents u/s 306/ 201 IPC in the concerned court.

Trial court framed charges against the respondents u/s 306 IPC. Respondents abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Kanchhedi Singh, uncle of the deceased (PW-1), Shivraj Singh brother of the deceased (PW-2), Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-3), Ginni, father of the deceased (PW-4), Awadh Rani, mother of the deceased (PW-5), M.K. Pachouri, Sub Inspector (PW-6), RR. Uike Additional S.P. (PW-7), Akhilesh Tiwari, SHO (PW-8), Asha Thakur, aunt of deceased (PW-9) were recorded.

Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial court holding that ingredients of abatement of suicide has not been proved by the prosecution extended benefit of doubt and acquitted respondents of the charge.

This appeal has been preferred by the State on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. There is sufficient evidence available on record against the respondents regarding acts of cruelty and harassment of the deceased by saying her "kali Kalluti and Jungali" etc amounts to abatement resulted in her suicide. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the findings of acquittal given by the trial court and opposed this appeal.

Kanchhedi Singh, Uncle of the deceased (PW- 1) stated that he received information of death of deceased through his brother-in-law Prakash Singh. Though it was stated to him that cause of death was some ailment but he could not believe this story. While deceased was taken to hospital for treatment, PW-1 accompanied her. It is evident from Post mortem report Ex. P-7 in which this fact has been mentioned that deceased tried to say something to him on the way. In para 9 of his statement, he stated that somebody told that deceased died by hanging but from dead body it was difficult to ascertain.

Ginni, father of the deceased (PW-4) and Awadh Rani, mother of the deceased (PW-5) along with Kanchhedi Singh, uncle were the punch witnesses of lash panchnama (Ex.P-2) also. In lash Naksha Panchnama Ex. P-2 there is no mention of death to be a case of suicide by hanging. In view of the aforesaid circumstances it appears that response and conduct of the respondents regarding death of the deceased was not suspicious rather it was natural conduct and they kept maternal family members of the deceased well informed with everything.

In so far as evidence of harassment and cruelty is concerned Awadh Rani (PW-5) stated that she heard 3-4 days prior to the incident that deceased was crying on account of some incidents of misbehaviour of respondents and their other family members in matrimonial house. Asha Thakur (P W-9) stated that deceased told her that she was not happy in her matrimonial house. This fact has been informed by her to PW-5 also. Any such incident of 3-4 days prior to the suicide can be termed as abatement or not is to be seen.

Abatment is defined in Section 107 IPC which reads as below: -

Abetment of a thing--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1

A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2

Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Prosecution has failed to prove any specific date and place of act of alleged harassment of deceased amounts to instigation by the respondents. Version of the deceased of such incidents was narrated to PW-9 at some point of time, thereafter 3-4 days of such narration, deceased died all of a sudden in suspicious condition in her matrimonial house. Prima facie her death was not considered to be a death by hanging. Fact of death has been informed by respondents to her parents immediately. In view of the aforesaid, any such instances of saying a lady "Kali Kalluti and Jungali" or such other alike words, in my considered opinion, cannot be said to be abatement as required u/s 107 of IPC.

Trial court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective minutely. There appears no perversity and illegality in appreciation of the evidence as done by the trial court in this regard. Merely on the basis of fact that a married lady died untimely in suspicious condition, in absence of specific evidence of abatement, offence u/s 306 IPC cannot be presumed or said to be proved. I concur the findings of acquittal given by the trial court. On the basis of evidence available on record, no case u/s 306 IPC or any other offence whatsoever is made out against the respondents. This appeal is devoid of merits and as discussed above, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed for want of merits.